Following the Council’s communiqué, in the ministerial newsletter, concerning its retreat discussions and its finding that there was nothing wrong with the alternative internet forum, I thought it might be useful to give a description of what it was, so that we can clearly understand what was and is being discussed. Some don’t read longer posts, so the most salient points have been bolded so you can skim and find them quickly.

The Rules of the Elders Forum state “The PURPOSE of Elders Forum will be to use a vehicle by which we can communicate in a professional manner on issues facing the General Conference of Elders and Church.” I believe these ethical concerns about the alternative forum are grave issues facing the GCE now. I shall do my best to respect the EF rules while attempting to deal with a sensitive and somewhat emotionally charged issue.

The Council communiqué last Thursday defended the rescission resolution by referring to a “legal opinion that to have concerns and not to do so would be unethical.” According to that legal opinion, we are bound to speak up and try to change things if we have ethical concerns. We have such issues before us now.

After conducting a personal investigation, outside of any work done on or for the Council, and without using any information that came from executive sessions of the Council, I was eventually able to get input from several men who were on the alternative forum and decided to leave it, or were dropped from it. I will do my best to present the findings as dispassionately as possible, not to undermine anyone’s reputation as the EF rules and Christianity forbid, and will limit my personal opinion to the last paragraphs of this post.

These alternative forums have existed for several years, until the latest one was closed shortly before the ballot last May, when elders started asking pointed questions about it. One could ask why, if there was nothing wrong with this forum, it would be shut down once its existence became more widely known and questions were being asked about it. It would have had time to affect the balloting of the elders participating.

Elders entered the forum circle only by invitation, that is, the gatekeeper contacted individual elders who might fit the profile being sought. The elders apparently had to be vetted by an authority of the forum who then decided if the prospective participant’s outlook fit. This was not just a group of old friends talking things over. Men were solicited who hardly knew the gatekeeper. Before being admitted, elders had to give their word that they would never divulge the names of the elders on the forum or the comments that were made – including if they chose to leave the forum later on. Apparently, elders who didn’t display the desired attitude in their comments could be and sometimes were dropped.

According to the information given to me, the forum was mostly a platform for criticizing our administration, and members of previous Councils who supported the administration in a traditional, conservative view of how the Church should operate and who were in favor of the relocation. One elder who left the forum when he discovered what it was like described it as “very offensive.”Since the following information was discussed openly at the Council retreat, since the Council found that there was nothing wrong with the alternative forum, and since permission was given to share non-executive-session information, there’s no reason we shouldn’t all know that Paul Kieffer set up the forum and was the gatekeeper. At least one other presently-serving Council member was also part of it.

The Council communiqué reads in part: “It [the Council] acknowledges that forums have existed in the past, but there was little merit to the descriptions given as to size or negative intent…. The Council is sufficiently convinced that there was no block voting or attempt to bloc vote” (emphasis mine).

Since these conclusions are very much at odds with what I learned from several former participants, it would be helpful to know how the Council reached these conclusions:

· Did the Council read all, or some, or any, of the posts from the alternative forum/s?

· How many former participants were interviewed?

· On whose testimony did the Council base its findings?

· Is the Council “sufficiently convinced” there was no negative intent based solely on the statements of the man or men on the Council itself who set up the forum and/or participated in it?

· If so, should that be considered unbiased testimony?

· Should the Council recuse itself from this matter to avoid what appears to be an obvious and serious conflict of interest?

· Should the GCE set up its own independent committee of inquiry?

I suppose depending on our personal outlooks, some might not be shocked by such a situation and such conduct in the ministry. It is very sad to me that fellow elders have defended, even on this forum, such behavior, which I find completely unethical and unacceptable. If this is considered acceptable ethical behavior by some elders in United, I can only wonder how much common ground we will be able to find in matters of ethics and moral principles. We must be in agreement on those principles if we are to trust one another and to work together.

40 comments:

When will people finally wake up and realize that although these "servants of God's Work" will retreat to splendid resort settings with each other to convene, discuss, exchange views, swap stories, make proposals, break into research committees, write study papers, etc., - and yet, at the end of the day, nine times out of ten, they will ultimately end up doing what they WANTED to do in the first place!

Why don’t they save boatloads of money and time by just being up-front and saying, “Look people, we are God’s ministers, we are in charge, we will do what we want to do, no matter what. So “tough bananas” to those who may disagree with our God-inspired decisions. We’re in charge, and you’re not.”

The under-the-table purchase of the property outside Dallas was eloquent testimony to this observation in action.

Does anybody take these arrogant chest-puffers seriously?

Well Leonardo, to answer your own question, I guess so, because they still seem to be receiving their healthy paychecks every two weeks, and the funds have got to be coming in from somewhere!

I have posted before about the alternate elder's forum...having been a part of it before I left UCG. Overall, I found it to be very informative, moderate, and often the posts on it were much less offensive than ones posted on the HO sanctioned EF. Since I have personal experience and Joel doesn't...his post is based on hearsay...I can dismiss his post as exactly like your picture indicates...Joel is crying the blues once again.

One thing I found almost amusing...and ironic...I know of people who quit the HO sanctioned EF for the very reasons Joel listed for folks quitting the alternate EF. And to make it even more ironic...some of the most offensive posts on the HO EF were Joel's posts!! One such post that I mentioned before on this forum...was the one when he stated that nonsalaried elders should seek the advice of their Regional Pastor about who they should vote for. This was presumably because the RPs knew everyone better than the nonsalaried elders. How condescending is that??? Especially when all UCG elders who are part of the GCE are eligible to become COE members. I really doubt that the RPs know all the hundreds of nonsalaried guys.

Another humorous thing about Joel's post...is that sometimes guys were no longer allowed to take part in the HO EF either...if they posted offensive things etc, they could disallowed to post. Perhaps someone needs to take a look at Joel's posting privileges and revoke them...since he seems to have a habit of posting embarrassing things. He and his buddies truly are a bunch of cry babies.

Like I have said before these guys need to get a life and not be concerned about what forums other UCG elders are a part of. They are adults and we live in a free country and anyone can start and be a part of any forum they want to be a part of.

Governement regulation (church or otherwise) is increasing and taking away the freedoms of the average joe. I wonder if Joel sees the increase US government control. If he does, he might want to take a step backwards and look at this picture again...and see that churchwise, he wants to be the one controlling others.

Joel Meeker says,"elders had to give their word that they would never divulge the names of the elders on the forum or the comments that were made – including if they chose to leave the forum later on. Apparently, elders who didn’t display the desired attitude in their comments could be and sometimes were dropped."

Same goes for the UCG sanctioned EF...it is to be kept confidential unless someone gives permission for a post to be shared. And also, an elder can be banned from the UCG EF also. Yet this is a point that Joel felt the need to highligt as being important---and proving that something unethical was going on. So I guess the regular old UCG members should be outraged that they are excluded from that forum...that only elders are invited to participate???? Tit for Tat as they say....Joel needs to grow up!!

Meeker moaned: "Before being admitted, elders had to give their word that they would never divulge the names of the elders on the forum or the comments that were made – including if they chose to leave the forum later on."

Wow, no sh!t, Sherlock. It's obvious that a significant number of elders and ministers within UCG feels the need for a safe environment in which they can openly discuss, without fear, ideas that might not be congruent with the party line -- especially with goons like Meeker running around taking names and then tattle-taling to ministerial services, who then often threatens them with termination and disfellowshipment.

Meeker's presence is one of the legacies of David Hulme. Hulme wanted Meeker around because he was a known yes-man and enforcer...

Mike (Don't Drink the Flavor Aid) said... This would be the same Joel Meeker who made a point to have Dixon Cartwright of "The Journal" ejected from observing a meeting of the UCG COE.Oh. that is Joel's favorite thing to do is get people fired or removed.

He is one of the biggest accusers of the brethren in UCG.

All these fault finding, backstabbing ministers will forget about all of this when it is time to preach to the members and tell them how to live a christain life!

Here's a great idea...Joel should take his investigative skills and reach out to the many, many elders and members who have left UCG and find out why...then maybe he and his cronies can figure out how to fix things!! Oh, I forgot...THEY are the answer people...and the ones who rule...they already have all the answers...it's all those rebellious folks who won't put themselves under Joel and friends authority who are the REAL problem...NOT!!!

Noticed that Paul Kieffer was called out specifically. Is JM trying to put another nail in the coffin or is this related to the aforementioned "Waddle Incident"?

Also, is he ticked because he wasn't asked to play in the sandbox too?

It really is a shame, but so very unlikely that JM will try to see the reasons for an alternative forum. Most likely he, and those of his ilk will see it as a place to foment rebellion. But they never ask, why do people feel the need to rebel (and I'm not talking the old standby of the Devil made 'em do it.) Could it be that some of them needed a place where they didn't feel so oppressed?

To our fellow Posters with complaints about being “Censored” here by the wicked moderator:

Please keep in mind that coming to a moderated forum is much like knocking the door of a residence with a welcome sign out front, and then whining because the owner doesn’t allow smoking , drinking, or what ever vice you happen to like and don’t see why it is offensive to anyone else. You are a guest, and there of your choosing .

My overall observing here ,is that many of us posters spend far too much “time and words” in expressing OUR prospective and way too little introspective in evaluating how these words play out in the in the ears and minds of people with a different frame of reference . The exchange of insults both personal and ideology do nothing to add to the point and in the long run have the opposite result .

The idea here, as I understand it is a free flow of information and prospective of posters and readers with a somewhat common background thread . Our moderator has the difficult and thankless task of trying to keep this flowing , while also trying to have a real life apart from this forum.

This is not a total summation but I hope the point is made.

We as contributors have the simple task of making this as easy for our moderator as possible before he shuts the whole thing down and gets a life.

Kieffer was forced out because of his current views, and perhaps some ancient antagonisms, not because of anything morally dubious that might have happened in the past. Past events/allegations were a pretext for dumping him.

The real reasons, once you cut through the smokescreen, related to the alternate forum and the ascendancy of a new group to the leadership with less hierarchic fixations. This was/is seen as a threat by the old guard.

To be distracted by what one e-mailer calls "the dirt" is to miss the point entirely, and play into the hands of those involved in some pretty nasty politicking.

I loathe, hate, despise politicking in general. Admittedly because I have trouble comprehending it's nuances. If it isn't straightforward you'll usually get a blank look of incomprehension from me. It's also made up a few of those straws that broke the camel's back for me when choosing to leave the church after all the changes:)

That phrase always had such a nice ring to it. Made me feel secure that I wasn't living in a dirty or unkempt Church and that only the clean would be left standing.

Kinda like getting back on track. I didn't know we had gone into the ditch until I was told we were now back on track. The Engineers I think were talking to other engineer types about this problem as being a passenger only seemed to not give that impression until we were already back on the tracks again. What a smooth ride!

Perhaps the over all problem was that the tracks themselves weren't very clean, or maybe were very clean but just not going anywhere important or meaningful

There is a disconnect between what is posted and the detail in the comments (e.g. posts by Bamboo_bends & Gavin).

Where are you all getting the extra information, and if this really is Ambassador "Watch" why not just post it all instead of beating around the bush and then letting comments divulge further details.

Since the comments are moderated heavily the end result from an outsider's perspective will be that the comments represent the owner's particular views. There is no point in not just making this a proper COG news blog instead of this semi-passive aggressive model we see now.

Bamboo_bends wrote:"What's been bugging me about this story is this theme of ethics violation and him being dishonest (come-on that's bureaucrat legalese - I can name some first class liars in the COE that many ministers would confirm from years of experience!) and immoral. Who's gonna cast the first stone COE?"

Yes, I agree, Bamboo.

It reminds of a story told many years ago – when folks were complaining to long-time Senator from Arizona and 1964 right-wing presidential candidate Barry Goldwater about immorality and ethics violations in the government.

He responded by saying, “If you punished everyone guilty of immorality or ethics violations, hell, that would be 80% of Washington!” - or something similar, since I'm just paraphrasing from memory. This was later in Goldwater's carrer that he said this, and so he didn’t have to worry about being politically-correct in his statements that much any more.

If UCG leadership pointing the finger at others for immoral or ethical violations isn’t a classic case of “the pot calling the kettle black” then I don’t know what is!

Mickey wrote:"I loathe, hate, despise politicking in general. Admittedly because I have trouble comprehending it's nuances. If it isn't straightforward you'll usually get a blank look of incomprehension from me."

I do too, Mickey!

And that's exactly WHY such "subtle nuances" enter in: the politicians can’t afford to be up-front and straightforward, because if they were, then folks would clearly understand the shenanigans they typically are up to!

Wonder what would happen if Joel had to go out and actually get a real job?

Also, wonder if Joel's ever read the warning from Christ in Matthew 23:18: "You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are" (NIV).

Just a thought (from Trader with Style, who apparently has forever lost his Google password)

It has been a traditional doctrine in the Church of God that it is wrong to openly criticize those in authority over you in front of others also under that authority, thus weakening the office and the ability of the man in that office to govern. It is probably on that basis that Joel Meeker evaluates harsh criticism in the alternative elders' forum against the administration as "unethical."

But you cannot have a democracy without the freedom to engage in that kind of critical communication. And UCG governance is a democracy, not a spirit-led consensus. Authority of those in charge, the 12-man ruling board, comes from those under that authority, the 500 ministers in UCG. But to make wise decisions about whether to vote for or against those in power, they have to be able to discuss not only the faults of those in power, but they have to be able to discuss and agree on alternative candidates if they choose to replace those in power.

There is a Bible principle against speaking disrespectfully against those in authority over you. But there is also a Bible principle of seeking counsel before making a decision. There is a contradiction, not between those two principles, which can both be followed when you have top-down government, but between those principles and democracy. You cannot have governance by ballot and follow those two Bible principles.

WCG News archives

Ambassador Watch does not necessarily endorse any of the links or blog feeds included on this sidebar. Some are helpful and informative, others push the boundaries of weirdness. They're all included here because they reflect the different ways people think in the COG and ex-COG pocket-universe; the good, the bad and sometimes the ugly.

Reports of dead links or suggestions for new links are welcome. Email otagosh@gmail.com